Allahabad Court February 1923 Judgments
Surjan Singh and ors. Vs. Wazir Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1923
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.483
1. It is very unfortunate that the learned Judge did not appreciate the substance and importance of the application which was made to him. There has been an unfortunate error--for our purpose it does not matter very much--in the paper record of the case owing to a misdescription of a certain locality in the plaint. That error, unless corrected after discovery, must necessarily be carried forward into the decree and either injuriously affect the rights of the plaintiff or misrepresent the true state of facts. In either case a Court, when that condition of things is present, has jurisdiction under Section 152 of the Code to correct it. The application was a perfectly proper one made under the right section and describing in paragraph 5 the nature of the accident which had led to the misdescription. It was supported by the affidavit of one Surjan Singh, the plaintiff himself. There was no possible legal objection which could be raised to the application. Unfortunately, the learned Judge h...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Dutt Prasad Singh Vs. Sri Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All503; 74Ind.Cas.557
1. We have now before us an appeal by the decree-holder in a suit on a mortgage in which the preliminary decree for sale was passed on the 4th of March 1910 and the decree absolute for sale on the 30th of April 1915. We disposed of yesterday two appeals arising out of the execution of this final decree but the question raised in the present appeal is wholly different. It concerns the liabilities of the three judgment debtors who appear on the record as defendants, Nos. 2,4 and 5. It is admitted that both in the preliminary decree and in the final decree the liability of these defend upon was limited to a certain aggregate sum, made up of no less than six items set forth in detail in the judgment itself. The question raised by this appeal is as o the direction contained in the preliminary and in the final decree on the question of interest. The great point in favour of the decision of the Court below is that it has continued to apply the same method of calculation in the matter of accum...
Tag this Judgment!Gobardhan Das Vs. Makundi Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All438
Ryves and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a third share of a ruined house No. 445. The plaintiff's allegation was that the said one-third share was attached by Janki Prasad, father of Ajudlua Prasad, defendant No. 2, in execution of a decree of his against Chhote Lal, the tenant of the khandhal. The plaintiff zamindar objected to the attachment on the ground that as soon as the house fell in ruins and the tenant had left the village, the site had reverted to him and was, therefore, not saleable. This objection was disallowed in the execution department as having been preferred too late. The property was sold by auction on the 17th of September, 1919, and the defendant No. 1 purchased the property. The sale was confirmed on the 27th of November, 1919. When the defendant No. 1 began to rebuild on the said land, the plaintiff tried to stop him but the defendant did not listen to him; hence the present suit. The defendant No. 2, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Shankar Vs. Ram Piari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All441
Muhammad Rafiq and Lindsay, JJ.1. The two appeals Nos. 391 and 392 of 1920 are connected inasmuch as they arise out of a suit brought by Hari Shankar on the 11th of December, 1918, in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut for partition. Hari Shankar alleged in his plaint that he and Shankar Lal were the sons of Pandit Ram Chandar who was the brother of Pandit Chajju Mal. The family was joint and no partition of the family property had taken place. Hari Shankar did not propose to remain joint with his uncle Chajju Mal and, therefore, claimed partition. Among the array of defendants was Shankar Lal, the brother of the plaintiff. Shankar Lal put in no written statement. The other defendants resisted the suit by filing written statements and raisins various pleas. As Shankar Lal had failed to file a written statement within the time allowed by the first court, a rubkar dated the 1st of February, 1919, was drawn up by the presiding officer of the court directing that the proceedings ...
Tag this Judgment!Akbar Ali and anr. Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All443
Ryves and Daniels, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs respondents Akbar Ali and Bande Ali for the recovery of certain land which the Collector purported to acquire on behalf-of the Secretary of State for a public purpose, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A notification was duly issued under Section 6 of the Act stating that the land was required for a public purpose, and, under Section 7 of the Act, the Collector of Etawah was directed to take order for the acquisition of the land. The usual acquisition proceedings under subsequent sections of the Land Acquisition Act followed, and, ultimately, the Collector took possession of the land under Section 16 of the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act declares that a declaration under this section shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a company, as the case may be. The sole ground on which the suit has been decreed in the courts below is t...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Akbar Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All523; 74Ind.Cas.8
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents, Akbar Ali and Bande Ali, for the recovery of certain land which the Collector purported to acquire on behalf of the Secretary of State for a public purpose under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act of the year 1894. A notification was duly issued under Section 6 of the Act, stating that the land was required for a public purpose, and, under Section 7 of the Act, the Collector of Etawab was directed to take order for the acquisition of the land. The usual acquisition proceedings under subsequent sections of the Land Acquisition Act followed and, ultimately, tire Collector took possession of the land under Section 16 of the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act declares that a declaration under the section shall be conclusive evidence that lie land is needed for a public purpose or for a Company as the case may be. The sole ground on which the suit has been decreed in the Courts below is that, in spi...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Goberdhan Das Vs. Makundi Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All435; 74Ind.Cas.1024
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising but of a suit for possession of a third share of a ruined house No. 445. The plaintiff's allegat on was that the said one-third share was attached by Janki Prasad father of Ajudhia Prasad, defendant too 2, in execution of a decree of his against Chhote Lal, the tenant of the khandhal. The plaintiff Zemindar objected to the attachment on the ground that as soon as the house fell in ruins and the tenant had left the village, the site had revetted to him and was, therefore, not saleable. This objection was disallowed in tie Execution Department as having been preferred too late. The property was sold by auction on the 17th of September 1919 and the defendant No. 2 purchased the property. The sale was confirmed on the 255th of November 1919. When the defendant No. 1 began to rebuild on the said land, the plaintift tried to stop him but the defendant did not listen to him, hence the present suit. The defendant No. 2, the son of Jauki Prasad, decree-ho...
Tag this Judgment!Bohra Tara Chand and anr. Vs. Musammat Rayazi Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All404; 73Ind.Cas.1040
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a Suit brought by them for removal of a wall alleged to have been built by the defendant on the plaintiffs' land and for the closing up three windows which were alleged to interfere with the plaintiffs' right of privacy. The defence raised was that the wall stood on defendant's own land and that two of the windows were old ones, and one a new one, and that there was no interference with the plaintiffs' right of privacy. The First Court decided that the wall was on defendant's own land and that the question of right of privacy did not arise as the land was lying waste and was rasta. It dismissed the plaintiffs' claim. The plaint ffs went up in appeal and the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the wall was on defendant's own land and that the plaintiffs could not have it removed. He further went on to hold that as there was no zenana house of the plaintiffs, there the question of the right of privacy did not arise....
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Singh and ors. Vs. Shim Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.286
1. These appeals arise out of two connected suits between the same parties. The first suit in which Second Appeal No. 61 of 1922 is brought was for arrears of rent under sections 34 and 102 of the Agra Tenancy Act. The second suit in which Second Appeal No. 44 of 1922 is brought was a subsequent suit for the ejectment of the defendants.2. The defendants are purchasers of the shares of three co-sharers, Kalua, Nadir and Moti. Their purchase was made in 1909. It was a purchase of the equity of redemption subject to a usufructuary mortgage of the same land previously made by the proprietors in favour of Debi Singh and Thakria. That mortgage is still subsisting. Under that mortgage ex-proprietary, rights arose in favour of the mortgagors 'ill respect of their sir and khudkasht land. When they executed the sale-deed in favour of the defendants the vendors relinquished their ex-proprietary lands and handed over cultivating possession to the defendants. The question in dispute between the par...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Singh Gir Vs. Sita Ram Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All349; 74Ind.Cas.757
1. Only one question is raised in this second appeal. It appears that the appellant who was the plaintiff had his suit dismissed in the Court of first instance. He went to the Court of the District Judge and filed an appeal. According to the valuation of the appeal, which was the same as the: valuation of the suit, the proper Court-fee payable was of Rs. 55, i.e., Rs. 10 in respect of a declaration which was being claimed and Rs. 45 in respect of the claim for possession.2. The memorandum of appeal was filed on a ten rupee stamp on the 4th November 1921.3. That was the date on which the Courts opened after the long vacation. The Munsarim recorded a report on the memorandum of appeal stating that the appeal was within time but pointing out that the memorandum of appeal was insufficiently stamped. On the 7th November 1921 the learned District Judge recorded the following order:I am not prepared to allow further time as only Rs. 10 Court-fee stamp has been paid and Rs. 55 were due. The ap...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »